RE: [apps-discuss] [arcmedia] Proposed charter for arcmedia
I didn’t want to quibble about the verb – “observed” is ambiguous, but so is “considered”. I was hoping not to have to define precisely what coordination is being
mandated, but “will be looked at for informational purposes” isn’t strong enough.
If the W3C TAG work were instead in an IETF working group chartered to produce it, would the IETF even charter
another group? If so, what coordination would be expected?
The way the IETF commits to do work is by chartering working groups; the way the IETF commits to coordinate is by putting the promise in working group charters
(or, in APSAWG the document mini-charter). I don’t want to wordsmith the charter and have the intent get lost. I want to avoid seeing IETF standardize arcmedia while W3C standardizes an arcmedia format which isn’t compatible. This may be simple or may require
active coordination on both sides.
If we agree to the sentiment, we can decide how to say it in the charter.
(bcc public-ietf-w3c re arcmedia working group charter)